Monday, July 27, 2009

stranded

when it comes to relationship, being faithful, for me, can be qualified into two definitions. first, is the typical monogamy stuff that everyone dreams of having from their partners but keeps on messing up with themselves. and lastly, it is simply how clean you deal your side dishes from the person you have promised yourself to.

i confess father. i was one hell of an unfaithful. i had this instantaneous thinking with people i met before and dared to cross the line after having a steamy sex, that if i am not even faithful with my religion, who the hell are they to demand it from me? thus, i never entertained the word commitment.

i dunno, commitment is such a big and heavy word. its like receiving a cat from your parents although what you asked is a goldfish. perhaps, its all because of the expectations and responsibilities you have to meet. although you know deep inside that they are just burdens you get from watching and reading too much romance stories or they are just residuals from your childhood out of listening to too much fairytales that in a way, find itself in your subconscious due to a phenomenon called dreaming.

most of us, always dream of happy endings. so we keep track of these tough and vigorous regimes to be worthy of such prize, only to know that at the end, all of us are just sluts with morals.commited relationship is plain mediocracy: a confirmation of our selfishness and an eraser of our insecurities. while faithfulness, on the otherhand, serves as the most effective arguement ever.

but unlike being faithful, trust is more liberating but at the same time it is selfless and unconditional, which i believe every relationship should be. although both may go hand and hand, most people over define exclusivity. we set too many rules: you should be this, you should be that until you realize that you are no longer the same person. you are love not because of who you are rather what they want you to be. thus, we feel box, easily get burn then break up.

for me, relationship is there for people to mutually grow, to realize their potentialities and not to seclude themselves from the rest of the world. when we love someone it doesn't mean that they are already ours. for they are not objects that can be possessed. they are individuals subject with their own beingness.

call me pessimistic. but id rather be practical than drown myself with the false idealism of romance. perhaps because i believe that there is a big possibility for a sheltered relationship to produce rebellious outcomes. its like the harder you grip, the more they would want to let go. but ofcourse, it would still depend upon the personalities involved.

please don't get me wrong. in saying all of these i am absolutely not promoting infidelity. for i still believe that trust should be taken with responsiblity, depending on the set up that the parties have agreed upon and not as an excuse for our petty and irrational desires.

in the end, i think trusting the person you love enables them to be who they really are and what they want to be, free from our own prints. at the same time, it strenghtens the relationship for in such way it assures us that we love the person no matter who they are and what the outcome will be.

i remember someone once asked me, why is it okay for you to allow D to go to places such as M? don't you feel threatened that D may fool around?

i looked at him and said, no. simply because i trust D in the same way he trust me. (see? it even rhymes.)

It made me think just how much trust a commitment-phobic person needs to receive/give before even considering entering into one.

I just find it contradicting that you trust that person supposedly like how that person trusts you, and yet you two refuse to partake in a commitment, in a relationship which foremostly, revolves around trust? :-) Just a thought.